Should Infrastructure Be Fully Privatized? A Libertarian Perspective

I hold strong libertarian tendencies, and over the years, I've been a lifelong member of the Libertarian party, supporting privatization in my youth. However, the question of whether infrastructure should be entirely privatized is far from straightforward. In this article, I will explore the nuances and potential solutions within the libertarian framework.

The Anarcho-Capitalist Perspective

Imagine a scenario where the government does not create or directly finance infrastructure. Instead, businesses either leave or find ways to create it themselves, due to the critical role infrastructure plays in the process of economic activity. Under such circumstances, local landowners would form a collective to raise funds and build essential infrastructure.

This collective approach would maximize value creation, much like a government would, but without the coercive elements that often come with traditional governance. The idea here is that, in an anarcho-capitalist system, there would be a strong incentive for such collectives to emerge and operate, fulfilling the role of infrastructure provision.

The Coercion Objection

One of the primary concerns for libertarians is the issue of coercion. Many believe that government's coercive nature is a fundamental problem. A common objection is that government's force is used to impose laws and regulations. To address this, some suggest that every 18-year-old could have the choice to sign a contract agreeing to follow the US Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court or leave. This would significantly reduce the coercive nature of government while maintaining its functions.

While some libertarians hope that such a voluntary approach would result in a less coercive entity, it's not necessarily clear that this would be the case. If the US were formed through voluntary contracts, it might still look very similar to what we have today. People interested in small government might still exist and fight to reduce the power of the government, albeit through different means, like forming their own communities under competing contracts.

Addressing the Current Challenges

Currently, infrastructure in the United States is largely public, funded and maintained through taxation. Private corporations building and maintaining infrastructure for either private corporations or governments are still a form of private activity. However, the financing of infrastructure is heavily focused on government projects, leading to underinvestment and perverse incentives.

To improve this, we should consider privatizing the financing of infrastructure. This would encourage appropriate adjustments in how much is set aside for infrastructure development. Additionally, creating a neutral finance system that doesn't push people into urban sprawl would be a significant step forward. By doing this, we can ensure that infrastructure development is sustainable and aligns with the economic and environmental needs of society.

Conclusion

Whether infrastructure should be fully privatized is a complex question with no easy answers. While the libertarian perspective offers valuable insights, particularly regarding the incentives created by collectives and the potential reduction of coercion, it is clear that a balanced approach is necessary. By focusing on privatized financing and a neutral finance system, we can create a more efficient and sustainable infrastructure ecosystem that enhances the quality of life for all.